On 9/14/07, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > They don't conviently forget it. You are the only person who has > > mentioned forcing people to walk. > > Untrue. They didn't analyse a single negative factor. The increased > travel times, the added stress and so on, whioch would need to be > fully evaluated. And, of course, the economic costs.
I really don't know what you are talking about. Please show me where it says that. The article does says: "It calculates the increases in physical activity and energy expenditure that would result if they transferred their car journeys to walking, cycling and public transport, with occasional trips by taxi." Increasing walking is obviously a good thing. This doesn't mean Ken Livingston is about to march into peoples' front rooms and force them at gunpoint to walk everywhere, regardless of their age and health. As for your unrelated point about analysising negative factors, well, I haven't read the LSHTM report, just the linked article, but I wouldn't assume that public transport is automatically slower and more stressful than car journeys. As for economic costs, that is equally mysterious. Martin _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
